Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gewichtung und Integration von Auffrischungsstichproben am Beispiel des Sozio-oekonomischen Panels (SOEP)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Nonresponse Bias

Zusammenfassung

In prospektiven Panelstudien wie dem Sozio-oekonomischen Panel (SOEP) gibt es im Grundsatz zwei Argumente, die eine Integration von neuen Stichproben sinnvoll erscheinen lassen. Zum einen sollen diese neuen Stichproben, die ab der zweiten Welle gezogen und in die laufende Stichprobe der ersten Welle integriert werden, ausgefallene Untersuchungseinheiten ersetzen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • AAPOR (2001). Standard Definitions. Final Dispositions of Case codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. Revised 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J., & Huisman M. (2003). Prevention and Treatment of Item Nonresponse. Journal of Official Statistics 19 (2), 153–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deming, W. E., & Stephan, F. F. (1940). On a Least Squares Adjustment of a Sampled Frequency Table When the Expected Marginal Totals are Known. Journal of the American Statistical Association 35, 615–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, Y., Hillygus, D. S., Reiter, J. P., Si, Y., & Zheng, S. (2013). Handling Attrition in Longitudinal Studies: The Case for Refreshment Samples. Statistical Science 28 (2), 238–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deville, J.-C., Särndal, C.-E., & Sautory, O. (1993). Generalized Raking Procedures in Survey Sampling. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88 (423), 1013–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorsett, R. (2010). Adjusting for nonignorable sample attrition using survey substitutes identified by propensity score matching: An empirical investigation using labour market data. Journal of Official Statistics 26, 105–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goebel, J., Grabka, M., Krause, P., Kroh, M., Pischner, R., Sieber, I., & Spiess, M. (2008). Mikrodaten, Gewichtung und Datenstruktur der Längsschnittstudie Sozio-oekonomisches Panel (SOEP). In J. Frick, O. Groh- Samberg, J. Schupp & K. Spiess (Hrsg.), Vierteljahreshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, Vol. 3. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M. (2006). Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 70 (5), 646–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haisken-DeNew, J. P., & Frick, J. R. (2005). DTC Desktop Companion to the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). Version 8.0 Dec 2005, Updated to Wave 21 (U).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J. A., & Wise, D. A. (1979). Attrition Bias in Experimental and Panel Data: The Gary Income Maintenance Experiment. Econometrica 47, 455–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error. Econometrica 47 (1), 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirano, K., Imbens, G. W., Ridder, G., & Rubin, D. B. (2001). Combining Panel Data Sets With Attrition And Refreshment Samples. Econometrica 69 (6), 1645–1659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horvitz, D. G., & Thompson, D. J. (1952). A Generalization of Sampling Without Replacement From a Finite Universe. Journal of the American Statistical Association 47 (206), 663–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalton, G., & Flores-Cervantes, I. (2003). Weighting Methods. Journal of Official Statistics 19, 81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalton, G., & Kasprzyk, D. (1986). The Treatment of Missing Survey Data. Survey Methodology 12, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kish, L., & Hess, I. (1959). A „Replacement“ Procedure for Reducing the Bias of Nonresponse. The American Statistician 13, 17–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kish, L (1965). Survey Sampling. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kish, L. (1992). Weighting for Unequal. Journal of Official Statistics 8 (2), 183–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. K., & Kim, J. J. (2007). Nonresponse weighting adjustment using estimated response probability. Canadian Journal of Statistics 35, 501–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroh, M., Pischner, R., Spiess, M., & Wagner, G. G. (2008). On the Treatment of Non-Original Sample Members in the German Household Panel Study (SOEP): Tracing, Weighting, and Frequencies. Methoden, Daten, Analysen. Zeitschrift für Empirische Sozialforschung 2, 179–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroh, M. (2014). Documentation of sample sizes and panel attrition in the German Socio Economic Panel (SOEP) (1984 until 2012). SOEP Survey Papers 177: Series D. Berlin: DIW/SOEP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroh, M., Käppner, K., & Kühne, S. (2014b). Sampling, Nonresponse and Weighting in the 2011 and 2012 Refreshment Samples J and K of the German Socio-Economic Panel. DIW Survey Papers (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroh, M., Goebel, J., Kühne, S., & Preu, F. (2015). The 2013 SOEP-IAB Migration Sample (M): Sampling Design and Weighting Adjustment. DIW Data Documentation (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, J. J. A., & Rubin, D. A. (2002). Statistial Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd edition. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohr, S. L. (2009). Sampling: Design and Analysis. 2nd edition. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, P., & Kaminska, O. (2010). Weighting strategy for Understanding Society (No. 2010–05). Understanding Society at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, H. D. (1950). Sampling on successive occasions with partial replacement of units. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 12, 241–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pischner, R. (1994). Quer- und Längsschnittgewichtung des Sozio-oekonomischen Panels. In S. Gabler, J. H. P. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik & D. Krebs (Hrsg.), Gewichtung in der Umfragepraxis (S. 166–187). Opladen: Westdt. Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rendtel, U. (1995). Lebenslagen im Wandel: Panelausfälle und Panelrepräsentativität (Vol. 8). Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70, 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royston, P. (2009). Multiple imputation of missing values: Further update of ice, with an emphasis on categorical variables. The Stata Journal 9 (3), 466–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika 63 (3), 581–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Särndal, C. E., Swensson, B., & Wretman, J. (1992). Model Assisted Survey Sampling. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schnell, R. (2012). Survey-Interviews. Methoden standardisierter Befragungen. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnell, R., & Kreuter, F. (2005). Separating interviewer and sampling-point effects. Journal of Official Statistics 21 (3), 389–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schräpler, J.-P., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2010). Individual and Neighborhood Determinants of Survey Nonresponse. SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 288. Berlin: DIW/SOEP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schonlau, M., Watson, N., & Kroh, M. (2011). Household Survey Panels: How Much do Following Rules Affect Sample Size? Survey Research Methods 5, 53–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schonlau, M., Kroh, M., & Watson, N. (2013). The Implementation of Cross- Sectional Weights in Household Panel Surveys. Statistics Surveys 7, 37–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schröder, M., Siegers, R., & Spiess, C. K. (2013). Familien in Deutschland- FiD. Schmollers Jahrbuch 133, 595–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. (1995). Die Zuwanderer-Stichprobe des Soziooekonomischen Panels (SOEP). Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung 64 (1), 16–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, R. L. (1949). An extension of control group design. Psychological Bulletin 46 (2), 137–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statistisches Bundesamt (2013a). Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit. Haushalte und Familien – Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus. Fachserie 1 Reihe 3. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistisches Bundesamt (2013b). Mikrozensus 2012. Qualitätsbericht. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.

    Google Scholar 

  • TNS Infratest Sozialforschung (2013). SOEP 2012– Methodenbericht zum Befragungsjahr 2012 (Welle 29) des Sozio-oekonomischen Panels. SOEP Survey Papers 144: Series B. Berlin: DIW/SOEP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G. G., Frick, J. R., & Schupp, J. (2007). The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) – Scope, Evolution and Enhancements. Schmollers Jahrbuch 127 (1), 139–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, N. (2012). Longitudinal and cross-sectional weighting methodology for the HILDA Survey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, N., & Wooden, M. (2011). Re-engaging with Survey Non-respondents: The BHPS, SOEP and HILDA Survey Experience. SOEPpapers 379. Berlin: DIW/SOEP.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DIW Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland

    Martin Kroh, Rainer Siegers & Simon Kühne

Authors
  1. Martin Kroh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rainer Siegers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simon Kühne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Kroh .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. DIW Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Jürgen Schupp

  2. GESIS - Leibniz Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Mannheim, Germany

    Christof Wolf

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kroh, M., Siegers, R., Kühne, S. (2015). Gewichtung und Integration von Auffrischungsstichproben am Beispiel des Sozio-oekonomischen Panels (SOEP). In: Schupp, J., Wolf, C. (eds) Nonresponse Bias. Schriftenreihe der ASI - Arbeitsgemeinschaft Sozialwissenschaftlicher Institute. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10459-7_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10459-7_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-10458-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-10459-7

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Science (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation